Here's a question about what rights are conveyed in a sale of an image:

If I sell an image to the local Chamber of Commerce with 'reasonable rights' for digital, printing use;
does that include transfer of this image to a third party magazine? Two of my images were reproduced w/o photo credit (oh, the sting), and w/o my consent or compensation.

No usage contract worth the paper its printed on would use such a vague phrase as "reasonable rights". The usage rights should be spelled out in detail, including rights to transfer the image to a third party.

BluesWest wrote:
No usage contract worth the paper its printed on would use such a vague phrase as "reasonable rights". The usage rights should be spelled out in detail, including rights to transfer the image to a third party.

But on the matter of "reasonable" (nebulously defined concept, not to be construed as legal definition) ... if the images were re-sold/re-licensed by the CoC to a stock agency or Nike or Coke or GM, the Martian Mafia Media company or some other entity that is not directly/indirectly involved with the business of the CoC, one might consider that outside of "reasonable".

If the images were part of an article about the CoC, the city or some other related / semi-related aspect of the CoC (i.e. the Hostess plant in town shutting down, or the boon in tourist to the region, etc.) ... then the looseness of "reasonable" makes (imo) such usage "reasonable" even though you didn't get credit, consideration or compensation.

Reasonable ... is only reasonable to reasonable minds. I "reasoned" the above reasoning. "Reasonable" is like playing poker with "wild cards" ... not only can you bluff your opponent so that it is gonna cost him to force you to show your hand, you can make your cards be anything you want them to be. You gave them a "wild card" to play with. What would a "reasonable" judge have to say on the matter ... kinda depends on how well you reason your position compared to how well they reason theirs.

Specifications are typically a better way to go ... as some "reasonable" persons have already suggested. "Reasonable" ... I'd reason that it's a word that is not helping to protect your interests very much.

Thanks for all the input. I will gladly accept that I did not define the terms very clearly, a rookie mistake. It's a very small second business to me and I have not developed a standard contract. Instead the invoice for the digital images said reasonable use for CoC for print or digital publication.

RustyBug asks what that means to me. My expectation was that the CoC could reproduce those images on any CoC publication, print or digital. Where I draw the line is when the images are used by a non-CoC entity, i.e. Sierra Heritage Magazine. It would have been ok if the CoC ran an ad in the magazine using my images, but they were used to illustrate a puff piece on our area in the Gold Country. So . . . they are being used to promote our area, but are still a separate entity. I would probably settle for proper credit and learn my lesson at this point.

It will take a very specific contract to define these terms. I'm new to selling images, or perhaps more accurately, licensing use of images. I've traded photos for large color ads with another publisher and get $45 each from the Coc, so it's been pretty amateur up til now. I did the cover photo for both the local magazine (15k print run) and for two county recreation districts. I do pro bono every year for a women's breast cancer fundraiser triathlon too, but sell prints from SmugMug site and donate 50% proceeds. I share all of that to say I'm only grossing less than a grand a year at this point, but want to move to more professional level pricing, which will support the larger industry too.

Yes, you are not "selling", it's better to use the term licensing. I highly recommend John Harrington's business book for some great advice on pricing, negotiating, and licensing: http://amzn.to/gBeYFf

+1 to all the above re the wording.
In addition, if you are allowing free use of your images on the basis of attribution (they credit you as the photographer when they use it) it can be difficult to ensure you actually get credited. Especially in the case where a company/org writes a promotional article (with photo) to be printed in the media. Because there is no money involved companies will often not worry about the exact terms of the agreement.

A good way to ensure you get credited is to add a clause to the effect that "the image may be used free of charge, subject to the acceptable usage clause x.x, provided that the photographer is clearly identified. The image may be used without such attribution subject to a payment of $500."

This will give the other party a $500 reason to pay attention to the terms of the contract and to ensure that they, in turn, insist that anyone printing the article/photo include your credit.

obscure wrote:
This will give the other party a $500 reason to pay attention to the terms of the contract and to ensure that they, in turn, insist that anyone printing the article/photo include your credit.

Chances are the original clients aren't liable for what a another party does or doesn't do regarding credit lines.
And no one reads the contracts any way. Until they have to....